1 posted on
04/28/2002 8:00:00 AM PDT by
Dog Gone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Dog Gone
Has anyone addressed the issue of the fuels being used by locomotives, airplanes and big rigs?
Do tractor trailers, boats, airplanes and locomotives currently run on fuels we get from Venezuela and the Middle East?
Can we get better mileage from any of those?
2 posted on
04/28/2002 8:05:08 AM PDT by
syriacus
To: Dog Gone
The thing I am surprised by is that we don't purchase diesel passenger cars and trucks. I suspect because of the damage done to the reputation of such engines by the Oldsmobile fiasco of the 80's.
I have a VW Jetta TDI that gets 36 to 39mpg in the city and 49'ish on the highway. It goes as fast as just about anything I have driven in its category, and doesnt smoke or belch soot like the big rigs.
If people want them - the alternatives are there... but having the government force us to drive stuff we dont want to drive will seriously damage the economy and put tens of thousands out of work.
3 posted on
04/28/2002 8:05:53 AM PDT by
visagoth
To: Dog Gone
We, here in Houston, are getting shafted starting Wednesday, May 1st, with new emissions standards. The hoops everyone will have to jump through to get our cars inspected are not only expensive, but will hopefully cause a huge backlash on the idiots who passed this stupid law.
Only 150 places in Houston are equipped to test cars, since the equipment they use is so expensive. The greenie elitists have managed to put more people out of work with this charade, but will fill their coffers by charging consumers nearly 400% more for a car inspection.
I'm praying for a backlash.... Let's see, 150 inspection places to 4 million people. Well, you do the math. I imagine the waiting line will take a 6 month minimum!
If you live in Harris County, call your state representative and Senator and bitch, bitch, bitch!
4 posted on
04/28/2002 8:12:47 AM PDT by
demkicker
To: Dog Gone
The bicycles works in Denmark it seems, the trick is to make the bikes so ugly and so identifiable that nobody want to steal them.
Alternative fuels are not going to be with us as long as there is oil in the ground........ The oil companies have spoken.
To: Dog Gone
I will make a bet if the Wacko animal/earth loving liberals were around at the time of the cavemen they would have damned the use of fire!!
8 posted on
04/28/2002 8:27:56 AM PDT by
GeorgeHL
To: Dog Gone
The new Fox from Volkswagen has a brand new engine and produces about 70 miles for a gallon.
18 posted on
04/28/2002 8:50:08 AM PDT by
ch.man
To: Dog Gone;All
I'm dreaming of the day I can back my pick-up up to my garden hose. I'm no engineer, but it seems to me the technology is out there to power our rigs with hydrogen. Will somebody more knowlegeable on this subject let me know if this is a possibility, and what it would take to run our vehicles with hydrogen?
21 posted on
04/28/2002 8:59:08 AM PDT by
lardog
To: Dog Gone
This guy has to be a shill for the oil companies.
22 posted on
04/28/2002 9:05:23 AM PDT by
JoshGray
To: Dog Gone
Why are they talking about mileage? When comparing alternatives to gasoline, wouldn't you want to compare emissions?
23 posted on
04/28/2002 9:09:58 AM PDT by
sixmil
To: Dog Gone
bump
30 posted on
04/28/2002 9:22:51 AM PDT by
timestax
To: Dog Gone
Two problems with the article.
The first is simple logic. "Mileage" as a measure of "cleanness" is not revelant unless the fuels are very similar. As an example buring LPG may not produce the same amount of "dirty exhaust components" per gallon of fuel than let's say gasoline produces.
Second, there are conventional, gasoline powered cars that produce milage in excess of the 35city/40highway that the greens desire. These cars are ideal for the typical commuter application and seat 4 adults comfortably for trips under two hours. Their use is a matter of public will not government policy.
To: Dog Gone
it is the energy contained in the fuel, not just the fuel itself, that moves you down the road. The answer for greater fuel efficiency might lie in our space program fuels.
Ammonium perchlorate (AP) comes to mind; it's the oxidizing agent in composite solid propellants for rockets, booster motors and missiles -- rather dangerous in collisions, though.
To: Dog Gone
Since the average citizen seems to be the focus of these energy saving and alternative energy ideas, maybe the government should just pay more people to do nothing. This way, they wouldn't have to use fuel to commute. And in order to save fuel on shopping trips, they should all be clustered close together, like in a city. The government could subsidize their food and shelter, and even provide mass transportation.
And since we can't expect people to just get something for nothing, all the government will ask in return is that these people vote them back into office.
Oh, wait, Democrats already do that. Never mind.
39 posted on
04/28/2002 9:53:28 AM PDT by
lds23
To: Dog Gone
The future looks increasingly like natural gas and hydrogen, rather than petroleum. New studies indicate that there are limitless supplies of natural gas under the Earth, and not just in Saudi Arabia. As for mileage, just have people park the stupid vans and suvs unless doing something which actually requires them, and have something more rational to commute and run errands in. The day when we tell Saudi Arabia to screw off will be worth whatever it took to get there.
40 posted on
04/28/2002 10:10:16 AM PDT by
medved
To: Dog Gone
They point out that a similar, though less severe, reduction in mileage is caused by adding the "alternative fuel" ethanol to gasoline. Can anyone state anything good factual about ethanol as a gasoline additive? The only thing I can think of is that it boosts measured octane (allowing fuel companies to use lower-octane fuel for the rest of their gasoline) though unlike real octane which makes fuel less volatile but provide more energy, ethanol makes it less volatile by providing less energy.
Ethanol would improve emissions in a car without a catalytic convertor, but those aren't exactly the most common breed these days (and since they're generally collectible, people who drive them generally don't want to destroy the engines by running ethanol through them). AFAIK, farm equiment is exempt from fuel-additive requirements, even though gasoline powered farm equipment without catalytic convertors is probably the place such fuels would provide the most environmental benefit. Oh well...
47 posted on
04/28/2002 12:13:07 PM PDT by
supercat
To: Dog Gone
NABH4 bump.
68 posted on
04/28/2002 1:56:31 PM PDT by
TBall
To: Dog Gone
A few years ago, I looked at a Ford Taurus FFV (Future Fuels Vehicle) The sticker on the car showed the mileage at 17 city, 25 Highway (or something like that)
Another Taurus NON-FFV (Conventional GAS only) was rated 20 City, 27 Highway. I knew then that the FFV vehicles which would use Propane or LP or NG got less mileage. The Dealer even pointed it out!!!
So this report is a "surprise?"
To: Dog Gone
The REAL secret as to why federal government will STOP ANY alternatives for becoming the standard is because HALF the cost of gas at the pumps is TAXES for the federal government.
To: Dog Gone
Should mileage be a concern if alternative fuels are used? Alcohol is a renewable fuel, unlike oil. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have to use natural gas although it might be convenient. Isn't the problem in a different area? If pollution is the problem, then why did we all install catalytic converters on our gas-powered cars and cut that kind of pollution to almost zero? If dependency on foreign sources for oil is the problem, then why not just build nuke plants and convert everything to electric, taking care of CO2 at the same time?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson